The clue is in Bai’s very obvious bias to show that this is all so sad, because Ritter should be a hero, since he was purportedly the man who exposed the perfidies of the Clinton and Bush administrations, both of whom wanted to foist regime change in Iraq and oust Hussein. Look at some of the following words in the article:

Ritter’s opponents on Iraq still aren’t willing to grant that he knew something they didn’t. The way they see it, Ritter, whose position on W.M.D.’s swung significantly after he left the country in 1998, was like the stopped clock that finally managed to tell the correct time.

And it was Ritter who then did an about-face and emerged, during the long period that led to the war, as the loudest and most credible skeptic of the Bush administration’s contention that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. In a bizarre moment in 2002, Ritter even made the long journey back to Baghdad to address the Iraqi Parliament as a private citizen, warning that his own country was about to make a “historical mistake” and urging the Iraqis to allow inspections to resume. For this, and for his relentless insistence that the presence of hidden W.M.D.’s was nothing but a political pretense for war, Ritter was dismissed and even mocked by much of the media establishment (including writers for this magazine and The New York Times)

Was Ritter really “credible,” as Bai argues? One must remember that when Ritter started shilling for Saddam Hussein you could not find one Democrat or Republican who had any inkling that Iraq was not hiding weapons. And to whom did he speak when he went to the controlled parliament — a rubber stamp for the totalitarian Ba’ath Party — as a “private citizen”? Who let him do that? Would any real independent person be welcomed by Saddam to play such a role? Do those actions make Ritter any real kind of hero? Would a legitimate journalist, someone with the integrity of the late Christopher Hitchens, let us say, be welcome to speak in Iraq?

Yes, and Bai also makes it clear: “It’s fair to say that the war…produced few real heroes…In Ritter’s case, the public vindication to which he would seem entitled- and which he has never quite received-has now been replaced by a very public disgrace.” (my emphasis)

That above sentence gives you the real agenda: We should separate our disgust for Ritter’s personal behavior — which hurts no one but himself — and pronounce him as a hero because he was always right, when no one else was. Bai even insinuates — but does not quite say — that it is suspicious that the charges against him emerged “just as the administration was preparing to invade Iraq,” and seemed “to indicate that his political adversaries meant to destroy his credibility.” Perhaps. But it was Ritter himself who engaged in this behavior, and his detractors did not have to invent it.

Indeed, Bai tells us that “he claims that the American government suspected him of spying for Israel; that Norman Schwarzkopf, the gulf-war general, once had him arrested; that the F.B.I. hounded [his wife] Marina for years because it suspected she was former K.G.B. You can’t help wondering how one man managed to attract so much institutional persecution.”

And yet, this is the same man of whom Bai also writes that “History will record…that Ritter was right, while those who showed him nothing but contempt were flat wrong.” Ritter, he says, was “the one with the most on-the-ground intelligence.” And Bai rationalizes his continual flip-flops, by writing that he “demonstrated a capacity to evolve in his thinking.” He was “never taken in.”

26 Comments, 16 Threads

1.
Judy K. Warner

I think another reason for the article is that the Times wants to differentiate itself from those Republicans like Rick Santorum and his supporters who would be much too uptight to write about a man masturbating in front of a teenage girl, whereas sophisticates like those who read the NYT know that this is a part of life, and those who can’t accept all parts of life, even the most degenerate parts, are really people who hate life and hate sex and hate everything good. Or some thought process like that.

“Chalk up Bai’s article as one more example of the Grey Lady’s continued efforts to get out of prison anyone who was a 60’s leftist terrorist or an anti-war person….”

Nonsense. The Times in no way calls for Ritter’s release. And the fact that RR, a tabloid columnist, can consider this a piece of tabloid journalism, shows how warped his judgment is. (I was going to write “how warped his judgment has become,” but his jump from one lunatic fringe to the other just proves the old adage that the leopard doesn’t change his spots.)

PATRIOT493: hey, silly….did you miss the whole point of Radosh’s article for a reason? Even when I was a skeptic of the war and the conclusion that there were WMD’s in Iraq, I still thought Ritter was a nut. He was the biggest advocate for Saddam’s removal based upon the existence of WMD’s, then overnight he’s the biggest advocate that there never were! And then he gets caught doing pervy things with what he believes to be little girls! If those three moments of truth do not speak volumes to the rational mind that Ritter has NO credibility in ANYTHING that he says, then nothing does. And that’s the point: The NYT IGNORES the basic, simple, in-your-face, truth and promotes an article that hails Ritter as a hero!? Do you not see the madness here? And if you do not, why is that? What is it about Ritter that you approve, or fail to disapprove? Ask yourself that friend.

I was responding to a specific claim in RR’s piece, and I repeat: Nowhere does the Times argue that Ritter should be released.

As to the “hero” question, the bottom line is that Ritter was correct, there were no WMDs, and he tried to avert war by appealing to the Iraqis to allow inspectors free access. Does that make him a hero? Is the Times calling him a hero? RR emphasizes the sentence, “In Ritter’s case, the public vindication to which he would seem entitled- and which he has never quite received-has now been replaced by a very public disgrace.”

Of what should he be vindicated? The Times answers that question in a previous paragraph not cited by RR:
“For … his relentless insistence that the presence of hidden W.M.D.’s was nothing but a political pretense for war, Ritter was dismissed and even mocked by much of the media establishment (including writers for this magazine and The New York Times).”

The Times article describes a man, once in the public eye, now disgraced and imprisoned, and who has lost touch with reality. An interesting story.

You know, here’s the thing: Ron Radosh writes under his own name. You, “Patriot493,” call Mr. Radosh – author of many books including a recent well-regarded history of Truman and Israel – a “tabloid journalist,” yet you hide under a cowardly pseudonym. What is the reader supposed to think? I certainly know what I think.

Pat sez: “And the fact that RR, a tabloid columnist, can consider this a piece of tabloid journalism, shows how warped his judgment is.” Pat, do the word non-sequitur strike a familiar note?

But I think I am getting your points. Writing a column for a “tabloid” is much worse than planning to strangle the fowl in front of a 15-year-old. And, incontrovertibly crying WMD and shortly thereafter saying there are no WMD? Hey that’s as much as to aver that Ritter is an interesting guy.

As I recall, prior to our invasion of Iraq and thereafter, here and there, mostly on the Internet-based “undermedia,” there was a fair amount of information and a lot of very specific detail about how Saddam–with the help of specifically named Russian military units (with mention of satellite images of caravans of trucks heading for the border)–had transported much of his WMD arsenal across the border into Syria on the eve of our invasion.

Then, there were the downplayed official reports of all sorts of odds and ends–of small amounts of what appeared to be left behind/overlooked chemical and biological warfare agents and nuclear material, chem/bio protective suits and anti-CW atropine syrettes, and bits and pieces of the technology needed to produce WMD that kept being discovered as our forces moved through Iraq.

Evidence all totally ignored by the MSM, explained away, or just very briefly reported and then never followed up on; dots deliberately not connected, because they would destroy the Left and the Democrats preferred “narrative” about how Saddam didn’t have and never did have any WMD, and how the U.S. fabricated evidence of the presence of WMDs in order to justify an unnecessary war (no mention–I notice–about how, in the days leading up to our invasion, every intelligence service in the world, and virtually every world leader, and politician in the Congress was convinced and believed that the WMDs were there, and were a deadly threat, and said so publicly–all that has been stuffed down the “memory hole” and is no longer mentioned–that part of history has been “disappeared”), a narrative about the “lie” about WMDs that has been repeated so many times by the MSM now, that it is just assumed to be the Truth i.e. this narrative’s version of “the science is settled.”

Thus, when Ritter abruptly switched 180 degrees from being a pit bull trying to go after the evidence verifying their presence and the actual WMDs that he knew were there–I remember one particular report of him trying to get into the front gate of a facility and being purposely delayed there while trucks pulled out of the back gate and away–to totally denying that there were ever any WMDs in Iraq or any good evidence for that proposition–I thought that he had been “gotten to.”

Knowing what we know now, perhaps he was being blackmailed, or perhaps being supplied with his drug of choice as an inducement to so abruptly and totally change his position.

Thank you for reminding us of those discarded facts…..inconvenient facts for those who opposed our getting into Iraq in the first place. I remember those events just as you recount them here. Especially shunted aside (by the MSM?….who else besides the anti-administration types had that capability of seemingly unified opinion?) were the widespread conclusions of the intelligence agencies of various nations that Saddam was hard at work getting WMD’s organized. They weren’t making that stuff up…cooperation in some areas is assumed, but unified action across so many governments’ closely held intelligence agencies just doesn’t seem very plausible.

Beside, for the WMD stuff that didn’t make it out crossing over into Syria on the truck convoys, there’s a lot of shifting open sand out there to hide evidence of burials. OK, where does one start to dig? When or if we get deeply into Syria, where do we start digging there?….by following rice trails back across another border into Russia….we shouldn’t be surprised at not finding those WMD crates on pallets in warehouses.

The “news” media don’t have all of the credibility they’d like us to think they have and apply daily, so healthy skepticism of the media from us public, unwashed stiffs is to be cultivated among ourselves for our own health.

I remember thinking it strange when Ritter did his about-face on WMD in Iraq–and then suddenly thinking it not so strange at all when the story of his extracurricular activities came out. After all, I assume that Saddam Hussein’s people would have been very active in trying to find weaknesses in people like Ritter, and if they had managed to discover his secret predilections, then the next step would have been obvious…

Scott Ritter was likely blackmailed by Saddam or his allies. It would have probably a relatively easy thing to do. Ritter was not exactly subtle and discrete. A few days of intense investigation might have been sufficient. Also, how lucrative were the financial rewards for reversing his position? Leftists normally make sure their people are well compensated.

Why would anyone even want to read NYTimes. It has been established time and time again that there is no true journalism at NYT. They are only interested in propagating the leftist ideology by any means and they lie to push their point. Nobody in their sane mind can ever trust what NYT and other liberal rags say!!

…Bai’s very obvious bias to show that this is all so sad, because Ritter should be a hero, since he was purportedly the man who exposed the perfidies of the Clinton and Bush administrations…

Scottie Ritter was revealed as a sexual predator & a pervert in the aftermath of his schizophrenic Iraq gig.

His shape shifting on Iraq was, in and of itself, a function of whatever he perceived to his personal advantage at the moment.

Ritter exposed “perfidies” in the same way that Valerie Plame’s husband Joe Wilson exposed “truth” in the manufactured brouhaha surrounding Plamegate, i.e., in service to nefarious and self-serving motivations.

“Journalists” like Bai are digging deeper and deeper for lies justifying their personal agendas & worldviews.

(The behavior reminds me of a certain president who takes the prize for that dynamic.)

Attempting to rehabilitate a Scott Ritter in service to bolstering a viewpoint is disgusting.

But Ritter is one of the GOOD pedophiles! He should get a pass. Sort of like Roman Polanski. There is no such thing as public disgrace for a famous (notorious) person/convict with left political leanings, no matter how disgusting their behavior.

Great post, but there’s an obvious answer to your question: it’s a great story! A man tormented by personal and professional demons, a Cassandra figure whose sexual perversion is a an outgrowth of his own wounded sense of greatness–hell, if the guy were Jewish it would be like a real-life Philip Roth novel. Now all of this means that Bai’s article has more in common with one of Werner Herzog’s famously stage-managed documentaries than with actual, honest journalism. But it’s at least obvious to me that Bai fixated on a novelistic (yet selective and misleading) narrative and just said the hell with it…

Ritter’s beef was that the UN and the US didn’t take the inspection regime seriously, and let saddam get away with all manner of sneakery. It seemed to me (and I think ritter as well) that saddam simply didn’t WANT the world to think he was disarmed – for extremely obvious reasons, like becoming an easy target.

Ritter wanted the world to pursue the tactic it was authorised to use – rigorous inspections and sanctions. And it didn’t. Instead it let hussein play games with inspectors, make money out of oil and continue to screw over his people. The reason? Because nobody actually really believed saddam was a threat. Not really. He was contained, so it didn’t matter.

Then, one day, for reasons truly know only them themselves, a president and a couple of prime ministers decided that they needed saddam to be a threat again so that they could invade. Ritter (and others) knew how BS the case for war was. Over time, the case for war war with iraq became crafted. Nobody could say he had nuclear, because we actually knew he didn’t have nuclear. We couldn’t (officially) say he had biological weapons, because we knew he didn’t. We weren’t even particularly sure about chemical weapons (and let’s face it – EVERYONE has chemical weapons). So we came up with WMD “programs”, and then bigged-up WMD to make it sound a bit like nuclear (15 minute warnings to a mushroom cloud over new york, and all that sort of garbage). And “weapons trucks” and shady links to al quaeda and other fairy tales. And yes, it was very important that 60% of americans thought he had something to do with 9/11, so the MSM made sure of it.

And when it was all said and done, the german intelligence agencies carried the can, because everyone put all their chips on one dodgy defector … coz he was all anybody had. The coalition had no evidence, but they had that one guy and he’d say anything. He’s out of reach now, though. He did ok.

And now we have the entirely predictable situation where certain groups want the world to believe (as they have since the 80′s) that iran is a couple of years away from having the bomb. But nobody believes intelligence any more. And it’s no wonder. Can anyone really blame level-headed, intelligent people for looking at claims based on secret intelligence and thinking “yeah, right, pull the other one”?

So … does anyone actually KNOW why we invaded iraq? I think everyone’s got a theory. But why did bush (or cheney, rather) actually DO it? Wasn’t about oil. There’s no (actualy) shortage of oil in the world – a couple of billion in government money into production and we’d all be fine. And we could have had iraq’s any time we wanted – he would have been happy to take our money. It wasn’t ever really about WMD, because we now know how weak that case was (we really do, so stop pretending). It doesn’t appear to have been about liberating anything, because bush didn’t send enought troops to do that. Casey apparently didn’t know that was his job until he reached baghdad. He thought he was just supposed to take the capital. So why DID we invade iraq? Anyone? Anyone? Bush rode two terms on that war, so somebody MUST know why.